You're conflating the name of a philosophical position with your own recollection of your own mental activity.

I am not conflating it. I am using the methods described by a philosophical position as a point of reference/comparison to what goes on in my own head.

Ah. I see. You drew correlations between the philosophical notion of phenomenology and your own mental ongoings and you did so without language...

Clear as mud.

The point is I practiced the mental process for 15 years and I tried to (and failed to) narrate it on a number of occasions. Phenomenology gave me the language to call it 'phenomenology' and it helped me narrate it.

DOING Phenomenology happened before acquiring the language to call it that.

Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Talk of input and output is utterly inadequate for taking proper account of thought/belief for it fails to be able to account for all the stuff that happens in between.

What happens in between is more Black boxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
Add them as necessary to elucidate your conception of "thinking".
And you can model your black boxes as 1:1, 1:Many. Many:Many inputs and outputs.

If you can't model it with N black boxes - you don't have a clue what happens either..

Black boxes are universal.

May as well invoke God here. It has the exact same explanatory power as the Black box notion you've invoked.

Talk of input and output is utterly inadequate for taking proper account of thought/belief for it fails to be able to account for all the stuff that happens in between.

What happens in between is more Black boxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
Add them as necessary to elucidate your conception of "thinking".
And you can model your black boxes as 1:1, 1:Many. Many:Many inputs and outputs.

If you can't model it with N black boxes - you don't have a clue what happens either..

Black boxes are universal.

May as well invoke God here. It has the exact same explanatory power as the Black box notion you've invoked.

I am not conflating it. I am using the methods described by a philosophical position as a point of reference/comparison to what goes on in my own head.

Ah. I see. You drew correlations between the philosophical notion of phenomenology and your own mental ongoings and you did so without language...

Clear as mud.

The point is I practiced the mental process for 15 years and I tried to (and failed to) narrate it on a number of occasions. Phenomenology gave me the language to call it 'phenomenology' and it helped me narrate it.

DOING Phenomenology happened before acquiring the language to call it that.

So you're saying that phenomenology offered a description that resonated with you about your previous mental ongoings that had been basically ineffable prior to?

Phenomenology helped you come to acceptable terms with your own mental ongoings.

Ah. I see. You drew correlations between the philosophical notion of phenomenology and your own mental ongoings and you did so without language...

Clear as mud.

The point is I practiced the mental process for 15 years and I tried to (and failed to) narrate it on a number of occasions. Phenomenology gave me the language to call it 'phenomenology' and it helped me narrate it.

DOING Phenomenology happened before acquiring the language to call it that.

So you're saying that phenomenology offered a description that resonated with you about your previous mental ongoings that had been basically ineffable prior to?

Phenomenology helped you come to acceptable terms with your own mental ongoings.

Is that about right?

Somewhat - yeah. I never sought coming to terms with it. I just tripped over my inability to express my mental process when people asked me about it.

And because I am apparently effective/efficient at getting things done they ask me a lot. So I figured I ought to try and make it communicable. Phenomenology helped me make it communicable.

The point is I practiced the mental process for 15 years and I tried to (and failed to) narrate it on a number of occasions. Phenomenology gave me the language to call it 'phenomenology' and it helped me narrate it.

DOING Phenomenology happened before acquiring the language to call it that.

So you're saying that phenomenology offered a description that resonated with you about your previous mental ongoings that had been basically ineffable prior to?

Phenomenology helped you come to acceptable terms with your own mental ongoings.

Is that about right?

Somewhat - yeah. I never sought coming to terms with it. I just tripped over my inability to express my mental process when people asked me about it.

And they ask me a lot. So I figured I ought to try and make it communicable. Phenomenology helped me make it communicable.

I was (am?) a doer, not a talker.

One can be both... a doer and a talker...

Explain it to me here and now...

What is this process you speak of that phenomenology gave you the words for?

The algorithm you're employing as a means to respond to what I've written is quite loose.

How precise a model do you want?

Well, one that provides a response based upon more than just synonyms of some words I've used words would be nice. I mean, how about one that determined how to respond by virtue of knowing what it would take for my claims to be true/false? That would be a relevant response based upon shared meaning.

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).